GPS, Maps, and cameras ILLEGAL

[marnof]

...Although the discount is certainly beneficial to the land-owner, it's small in comparison to the actual current-use assessment, which can reduce the tax value by 90% or more - even if the land is closed to the public.

Could you please explain this? I always assumed that current-use designation allowed public access to some degree in NH. Have I had it wrong?

 

[slevasse]

Could you please explain this? I always assumed that current-use designation allowed public access to some degree in NH. Have I had it wrong?

Found this NHspace.org. (http://www.nhspace.org/faq.shtml#1)

"What is the Recreational Discount?
The Recreational Discount is an incentive for landowners to keep their land open to others for six low-impact land uses; skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting hiking and nature observation. In exchange for agreeing to allow all six of these activities, the current use assessment is reduced by 20%. No other recreational activities must be allowed, and the landowner may post against any other uses. Participation in the Recreational Discount is optional. (RSA 79-A:4,II)

Isn't it true that all Current Use land is open to the public?
No. There is no requirement for Current Use landowners to allow public use of their land. Current Use land is private property and the landowner has the right to decide how their property is used. For more information, see the section on Public Use. "

 

[RoySwkr]

Yet what remains a problem is the complete lack of clarification of what it means to be "private property open to the public." You know, the kind of situation that gets a landowner a major tax break.

What does it matter? You need the permission of the owner even if that is the WMNF.

To respond to DM: rarely-enforced laws only lead to disrespect for the law, and grief for those like TB that they are enforced against

 

[marnof]

Very interesting. Thanks!

 

[Trail Bandit]

As noted, the discount for allowing public recreational use of a piece of private land that is in current use, doesn't amount to much and as also noted, land in current use can be posted KEEP OUT. There are many pieces of private land the owners have received large sums of money to put a conservation easement on. Many of these specifically allow public, non motorized, recreational uses and in some cases motorized uses are allowed. Some of the people who have taken the money still try to keep the public out. Private land in NH has a long history of being open to the public unless it is posted. The NH Fish and Game web site states:
Common law in New Hampshire gives the public the right of access to land that's not posted. You won't find that in state law books, because it is common law, going back to the philosophy of New England's early colonists and supported over the centuries by case law. Our forefathers knew the importance of balancing the need for landowners' rights with that of the public good. On one hand, the landowner can make decisions about his or her land. On the other hand, the public should have limited rights to use and enjoy that land. The colonists held similar democratic notions about rivers, lakes, fish and wildlife.
New Hampshire has different rules than many other states but that is the way it has been here and I hope it stays that way.

 

[JacobH]

Yet what remains a problem is the complete lack of clarification of what it means to be "private property open to the public." You know, the kind of situation that gets a landowner a major tax break.

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/legacy/legacy_places/nh/pdfs/nh_ossipee_s.pdf

Like this?

Honestly, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything. I'm pretty level-headed and I'm generally wary of any "conspiracy". I don't think this is a conspiracy though, as someone hinted at earlier.

This is straight up a power move by the people already mentioned on this page to give themselves the ability to hide their misuse of land. Why else would anyone want to stop people from taking pictures of it? Why else pass a law that only prohibits taking pictures of the land? Specifically "privately owned property open to public use". People who want to log this land for timber or don't want to clean up the sandpit, are advocating the bill. It's not like someone puts up a bill like this for fun, this is for personal gain. You put up a bill like this when someone comes on land that's available for public use, takes pictures of your destruction, posts them on the internet and makes you look bad because you're not taking care of "private land that has been made publicly available via easement".

You close the trails due to "improper maintenance" and try to lobby a bill that stops people from taking pictures of your "private property".

Follow the dots people, they are spelled out pretty obviously on this page and I think you are intentionally avoiding the elephant in the room if you're still not following along here. There is no conspiracy because there doesn't need to be. The few people who care about the land don't have the pull in the state house to stop it. The people who are making the profit are pushing the bill. For everyone else, it will just fly under the radar with vague terminology and extremely specific, local impact. Those same people own the land that I've linked to, and are misusing it as we speak.

This isn't about "private property rights". It's about making it easy to hide the truth.

Entity is paid 1.4mil for land. Entity now pays minimal taxes on land. Entity doesn't want to clean up land. Someone comes on land and notes that the land that has been made available for public use via easement is not being taken care of, takes pictures, posts them on the internet. Entity closes trails. Entity lobbies state government to pass law to disallow pictures or any kind of data taken from said land type to be captured. Bill passes with lobbying from forestry organizations.

Really, that's what just happened.

edit: let me help connect the dots for you if there is further clarification needed: http://www.ossipeemtnhiker.blogspot.com/

 

[Amicus]

What the current Bill really says

Let me try to clarify what the Senate appears to have passed. Its Judiciary Committee last week scrapped in its entirety the broad House Bill that has been the subject of this thread until yesterday, replacing it with a much narrower bill that amends an existing Chapter of the New Hampshire Statutes dealing with Conservation Commissions. The text of the current Bill, except for the two amendments adopted yesterday, is linked to Trail Bandit's Post # 34 above. I quote from the purpose of the current Bill:

1 Purpose. The purpose of this act is to set guidelines for entry by conservation commissions or their designees onto private property for data gathering for conservation and natural resource inventory purposes and for the publication of such data, and to ensure that property owners are informed of data gathering on their property.

In his Post #36 above, Trail Bandit quotes one of two amendments to the current Bill adopted yesterday. Here is a link to their full text. If you compare the two revised sections to the versions in the Post #34 link, you will see that the amendments do not expand them at all. Rather, they correct a glitch and somewhat narrow and clarify Section IV, which Trail Bandit quoted.

Since all of Chapter 36-A:4, which this Bill amends, deals with Conservation Commissions, and since new Sections II and III impose restrictions only on ConComms, their members or designees, it seems pretty obvious to me that Section IV must be read in that context, and applies only to the same persons.

Sections 3 and 4 of the current Bill, on the other hand, may be cause for future concern. They establish a committee of 5 members of the House, "to study entry onto private property, posting, trespassing, and the definition of recreational uses of private land." A number of more specific points to be studied are spelled out in Section 4, and the committee is supposed to report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation by November 1, 2012.

 

[MichaelJ]

20% may not be much, but it depends of course on the size of the property, and the fact that if done improperly (without local assessor's approval), you lose it for three years! From the NH Current Use Booklet:

(a) Land which has been granted an additional 20% reduction for recreation use pursuant to Cub 309.01 shall not be posted to prohibit activities described under RSA 79-A:4, II, unless such posting has been approved by the local assessing officials.
(b) If, the landowner posts the land without the approval of the local assessing officials, the 20% reduction shall not be allowed at the subsequent April 1st assessment period.
(c) Once the assessing officials have removed the 20% recreational reduction, the land shall not be eligible for the recreational reduction during the subsequent 3 year period, including the year of disallowance.

This is the kind of tax penalty that, for example, the Mt Cabot Trail landowner should have suffered.

Also note that failing to allow the assessors on your land obviously could mean the loss of your current use assessment.

But in any case, it looks like (thanks to Amicus for reporting this) it applies only to wetlands, which means it was of course pushed by that one landowner, and the end result is kind of a hokie law since I'm sure that any city or town government could get an adminstrative warrant issued for entry and examination if they wanted.

 

[REK]

This is straight up a power move by the people already mentioned on this page to give themselves the ability to hide their misuse of land. Why else would anyone want to stop people from taking pictures of it? Why else pass a law that only prohibits taking pictures of the land? Specifically "privately owned property open to public use". People who want to log this land for timber or don't want to clean up the sandpit, are advocating the bill. It's not like someone puts up a bill like this for fun, this is for personal gain. You put up a bill like this when someone comes on land that's available for public use, takes pictures of your destruction, posts them on the internet and makes you look bad because you're not taking care of "private land that has been made publicly available via easement".

Do you have any facts, citations, or anything at all that supports this statement. Connecting the dots can give you any picture you need to see although it may not be right.

This bill is pretty straightforward. Read it; it's about property rights and limiting the reach of government agencies. That's it. We all love to "Live Free or Die" which includes unwarranted intrusions into our lives and property. It's actually a pretty good bill.
Bob

 

[JacobH]

Do you have any facts, citations, or anything at all that supports this statement. Connecting the dots can give you any picture you need to see although it may not be right.

This bill is pretty straightforward. Read it; it's about property rights and limiting the reach of government agencies. That's it. We all love to "Live Free or Die" which includes unwarranted intrusions into our lives and property. It's actually a pretty good bill.
Bob

Ah, but see, this takes away rights from land designated as public use. It's not quite as cut and dry as you make it. The bill even states that. Like you said, straightforward. Not specifically private, but private-but-designated-for-public-use. Why would they bother? Can anyone answer me the simple fact as to why there would be a bill directed at this specific scenario, coming from Ossipee/Chocorua, involving the characters and organizations mentioned in this thread from that area? Do we honestly believe this was dreamed up "on a whim" simply to uphold our dear "Live free or die" attitude?

Why would the forestry company mentioned care so much about lobbying for this law if everything I've stated so far isn't the truth? What motivation would they have to... stop people from taking pictures and making maps? How many people do you know that are taking pictures of the Ossipee's and making maps? I can think of one. New Hampshire isn't that big.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I see this as a direct attack on certain individuals who care about our forests enough to protect them and maintain the trails through them, and care enough to report what they've found to the rest of us. The attack is directed by a group of people who don't have those values and care about hiding destruction and mismanagement of easement and conservation land, designated for your *public* use. If you see that as a something wholly "patriotic" then so be it, but I sure as hell do not.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

So Jacob (or others), Is there something specifically in the easement that requires a landowner to clean up or otherwise maintain the land in question in a particular manner for public use? Or, is it sufficient that there aren't any unexpected or unforeseen hazards, such is the case with my home and surrounding lot? (I.e., I can be held liable if you get hurt, if I had dug a big hole, and didn't surround it with caution tape, but not if you trip over the grass or down the stairs.)

If there is something in the easement, then I would expect the public would have redress based on that.

FYI, I'm not privvy to "the problem" as I have never been to the Ossipees and they aren't on my radar.

Tim

 

[Red Oak]

Is NH going to come and arrest people who live in other states?

.

Subsection 2.5,article 5 states: Any person or persons from new york will also have their beer confiscated and given to red oak.Watch you cooler Tom!

 

[JacobH]

So Jacob (or others), Is there something specifically in the easement that requires a landowner to clean up or otherwise maintain the land in question in a particular manner for public use? Or, is it sufficient that there aren't any unexpected or unforeseen hazards, such is the case with my home and surrounding lot? (I.e., I can be held liable if you get hurt, if I had dug a big hole, and didn't surround it with caution tape, but not if you trip over the grass or down the stairs.)

If there is something in the easement, then I would expect the public would have redress based on that.

FYI, I'm not privvy to "the problem" as I have never been to the Ossipees and they aren't on my radar.

Tim

That's too bad, the Ossipees have many redeeming qualities. You should visit, they're lovely! (The Mt. Faraway Lookout is up there with the best views in the state in my opinion)

As for the issue at hand. The documents linked say the land must be made available for public use. Guaranteeing pedestrian access. I think implies maintenance of some sort if people are supposed to be guaranteed to walk there.

"To guarantee pedestrian access by the public for hiking, cross country skiing, hunting, fishing and other low impact pedestrian recreational activities on the property and snowmobile access on the existing snowmobile trail."

franklin sites breaks down the situation pretty nicely:

http://www.franklinsites.com/hikephotos/Ossipee/

According to the "anonymous blog" (not really so anonymous) I linked above, and that's linked on the franklinsites page, the gravel pit that was still in use as of last year was supposed to restore and reclaim the gravel reserve on the property within 2 years of the grant (translation: a decade ago):

"i read that in the "Grant of Conservation Easement" document filed with the carroll county registry on march 28 2002, chocorua forestlands had an "obligation to restore and reclaim the Gravel Reserve" after "two (2) years commencing on the date this Conservation Deed is signed". interesting. i think that would mean that in 2004 the gravel pit would have been closed. it looked active to me when i was there this year (2010)."

 

[Trail Bandit]

For those interested in the private property that the land owner got $1.4 Million for a "conservation" easement on, you can go to www.trailbandit.org and go to the My Take on the Ossipees page. There is more information there than most are interested in.
I tried to attach a couple of bits here but the "attach a file or photo" process seems to have changed and I don't get it.
I realize that Amicus has a better grasp of how legal things work but if the law says in section IV that you need permission to take data, then I assume that all else that comes before and after doesn't matter much. The IV part of the law says that you need permission. Part IV says nothing about wetlands or conservation commissions.

 

[Amicus]

I realize that Amicus has a better grasp of how legal things work but if the law says in section IV that you need permission to take data, then I assume that all else that comes before and after doesn't matter much. The IV part of the law says that you need permission. Part IV says nothing about wetlands or conservation commissions.

Here is the relevant text of what the Senate passed (including yesterday's two amendments, but omitting Sections 3 and 4, which appoint that House committee I mentioned to study possible additional legislation):

1 Purpose. The purpose of this act is to set guidelines for entry by conservation commissions or their designees onto private property for data gathering for conservation and natural resource inventory purposes and for the publication of such data, and to ensure that property owners are informed of data gathering on their property. These guidelines do not supercede guidelines already established by state agencies as they may be modified from time to time, but establish guidelines for conservation projects at the regional, local, and individual level.

2 Conservation Commissions; Powers. Amend RSA 36-A:4 to read as follows:

36-A:4 Powers.

I. [Existing text of 36-A:4, which is not changed - general stuff about powers and funding of conservation commissions.]

II. No commission, its members, or designee shall enter private property to gather data about the property for use in a wetlands designation, prime wetlands designation, natural resource inventory report or map, or natural heritage map without first obtaining permission of the property owner or agent, or a lawfully issued warrant. Such permission may be oral or written, provided that record is made of oral authorization. If consent for entry is denied, the conservation commission, or designee, may obtain an administrative inspection warrant under RSA 595-B.

III. Prior to requesting permission, the commission, its members, or designee shall notify the landowner of the purpose of the data gathering, the specific features that will be evaluated, the manner in which the data collected will be recorded and distributed, and possible known consequences of the data collection.

IV. No data gathered by entering property without the permission of the landowner or an administrative warrant shall be used for any purpose other than law enforcement purposes authorized by statute.

I don't think any court asked to interpret Section IV above would look at it in a vacuum, ignoring that it is the last sentence of a Chapter that is captioned "Conservation Commissions; Powers" and otherwise deals only with that topic, and ignoring also the stated purposes of the Act that added Sections II through IV. Just my opinion.

I'm curious what happens next. When the U.S. Senate amends a bill that has passed the U.S. House, the amended version has to back to the House for a vote. I would be surprised if NH doesn't have a similar requirement.

 

[peakbagger]

I expect technology will render this moot very soon. Remote Piloted Drones will be legal in a couple of years for private use and are currently allowed for "governmental use". Unless the FAA attempts to put restrictions on elevation above ground level (some discussions are 400 feet), a person does not have to "enter" the property to document whats going on in the property to a great level of detail. Although this opens up a major discussion on the implications for other activitities, I expect there will be firms offering the service for wetlands deliniation failry rapidly as they currently can do it to a limited extent with aerial photography. Using terrain radar (basically a fancy fish finder) and GPS low elevation flat "benches" which tend to be potential areas for season wetlands. It will also readilly pick up gravel pit issues.

I really should buy stock in a company that makes camouflage netting

 

[rocket21]

I'm a firm believer in private property rights.

That said, when a person or firm takes over a million dollars of our tax money, and a very large sum in tax breaks and write offs, the situation is changed.

Any bill that protects the misuse of publicly funded land needs to be reconsidered. I've explored the Ossipees quite a bit in recent years, though nowhere near as much as some other folks posting here (or who have sites/blogs linked here) have. Nonetheless, what I saw in the Federally protected Ossipee Mountain tract was extremely disappointing.

 

[AMF]

Here is the relevant text of what the Senate passed (including yesterday's two amendments, but omitting Sections 3 and 4, which appoint that House committee I mentioned to study possible additional legislation):

I don't think any court asked to interpret Section IV above would look at it in a vacuum, ignoring that it is the last sentence of a Chapter that is captioned "Conservation Commissions; Powers" and otherwise deals only with that topic, and ignoring also the stated purposes of the Act that added Sections II through IV. Just my opinion.

Thank you for bringing that up. Its seems pretty clear it is specifically targetting the cc's, which if they are anything like my neck of the woods often think they have broad powers to gather data on private lands. Having done a lot of wetland delineations myself, I frequently will balk at going onto adjacent lands and ask that the regulatory agency do it if they want to see it.

 

[DougPaul]

I expect technology will render this moot very soon. Remote Piloted Drones will be legal in a couple of years for private use and are currently allowed for "governmental use". Unless the FAA attempts to put restrictions on elevation above ground level (some discussions are 400 feet), a person does not have to "enter" the property to document whats going on in the property to a great level of detail.

Manned aircraft can do this already. And satellite imagery can also do much of this too.

Although this opens up a major discussion on the implications for other activitities, I expect there will be firms offering the service for wetlands deliniation failry rapidly as they currently can do it to a limited extent with aerial photography. Using terrain radar (basically a fancy fish finder) and GPS low elevation flat "benches" which tend to be potential areas for season wetlands. It will also readilly pick up gravel pit issues.

Topographic data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (2000) is available at a horizontal resolution of 30m. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/

I really should buy stock in a company that makes camouflage netting

Radar can see through traditional camouflage netting...

Doug

 

[Trail Bandit]

The gravel pit in question on the Forest Legacy Tract in the Ossipee Mountains can easily be seen and photographed from the air.